/ electrosensitivity

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
paul mitchell 05 Mar 2020

     Never heard of electrosensitivity ?

   Well,I am electrosensitive,on  occasion. So when people talk about rabbit holes,I often think how little people really know about the topic of  human reaction to various electro magnetic wavelengths. Certain EMF's make me ill. 

         If you want to do your own research on this matter, I recommend  Google Scholar. In search,type in ''EMF and cancer'',or ''microwaves and cancer'', ''radio frequencies and cancer''. Hundreds of papers will   become available to read on screen.  Try not to accept everything the media tells you. The BBC for example has invested heavily in 5g roll out,so can hardly be unbiased on the topic. The Lancet is another interesting website on EMF and cancer.

    Do your own research.

Post edited at 10:06
69
wintertree 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

> EMF and cancer

You’re unbelievable 

2
TobyA 05 Mar 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> > EMF and cancer

> You’re unbelievable 

Oi! That's my joke from Paul's last EMF thread!

Paul - you might want to consider that continually telling people to "Do your own research", as so beloved by conspiracy theorists of all flavours, comes over as immensely patronising to people who do research for their jobs.

What research have you done beyond plugging some keywords into google scholar that will bring up articles that will confirm your preconceived ideas?  Have you got research degree in a field like neurology or electrical engineering? If not, wouldn't that be doing your own research?  Your "research" seems to be watching videos on YouTube of people with no obvious background in the fields they are opining on who tell you what you already think.

2
Sir Chasm 05 Mar 2020
WaterMonkey 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

>Certain EMF's make me ill. 

There's definitely something making you ill

1
john arran 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

I had a gîte client who claimed to be affected by wifi signals to the point of not being able to sleep. She begged for a solution as she was not sleeping at all so I compromised by programming the router to turn wifi off during the night. She was happy and slept well. But a few days later I realised that a power cut had cancelled my timer programming and the wifi was now staying on all night after all. She didn't notice.

paul mitchell 05 Mar 2020
In reply to TobyA:

There is plenty of evidence on the net from neurologists,and micro biologists,and electrical engineers,so yes, you seem to be unaware of those experts,so yes, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

   Here is a study on brain cancer in children and young adults. This stuff is not hard to find,at all.The reason I say do your own research is that anything I present gets torn to pieces on this forum. I just want  people to investigate,not to believe. 

       I am seriously concerned for my health and that of those who have no information on the topic.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11060-020-03437-4?shared-article-renderer&fbclid=IwAR0Zn6rmlR10KDMNT6mJHww-k_ldUC40kw0wr14F_HL8Jph-fhnUe-vNy2c

21
mondite 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

>        I am seriously concerned for my health and that of those who have no information on the topic.

I can understand your concern. I am surprised you are continuing to use a computer however. Why put yourself at risk still?

1
Oceanrower 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

>        I am seriously concerned for my health 

Many of us on here are seriously concerned for your health.

But maybe not in the way you think...

1
paul mitchell 05 Mar 2020
In reply to john arran:

I imagine that your wifi is not 5g ? Even if it is,one person and one instance hardly presents statistical significance,does it ?

5
paul mitchell 05 Mar 2020
In reply to mondite:

Simples,if I could use telepathy, I would. Yes, my computer makes me feel  a bit ill. I sometimes wonder if  the blind are worth trying to help. Click on the link about mobile phones and brain cancer. It is a serious  bit of clinical research. Try to let a bit of  new thinking enter your closed mind.

Post edited at 11:10
14
oldie 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

In the interest of fairness I briefly scanned the discussion and conclusion in your reference and must have missed the mention of EMF. Can you copy and paste it, please? 

paul mitchell 05 Mar 2020
In reply to oldie:

California Brain Tumour association is basically one person. Kevin Mottus. He has a support team of experts...https://usbraintumorassociation.org/our-team/

   Mr Mottus opposes 5g. Here is one  expert in action.   

  https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=you+tube+paul+heroux&view=detail&mid=17DB8189871FE9B8B7F717DB8189871FE9B8B7F7&FORM=VIRE

Post edited at 11:22
7
jkarran 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

Please talk to your GP about your 5G concerns Paul.

jk

1
Bob Kemp 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

This study simply describes tumours found in the areas of the brain where radiation from phones might be expected to be highest. It does not establish any causal connection between tumours and mobile phone radiation. It's clearly only a part of the larger ongoing study and it does not prove what you assume it does at all. 

paul mitchell 05 Mar 2020
In reply to Bob Kemp:

In for a penny.....some people it seems are  electrosensitive.I certainly am. Microwave radiation is thought to cause depression and tinnitus in some people. Once again,plenty of references online.

https://www.sott.net/article/424669-Three-NHS-workers-die-suddenly-while-working-for-same-toxic-ambulance-trust-Could-5G-be-related

16
mondite 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

>  Try to let a bit of  new thinking enter your closed mind.

Its best not to have a mind so open the contents fall out.

Although since you bring it up. What would lead to you changing your mind on this subject?

Dave Garnett 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

>      Never heard of electrosensitivity ?

Yep, it's a thing - if you are a platypus, dolphin, shark or knifefish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroreception

In people, it's indistinguishable from the imaginary.

summo 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

When I saw the tittle.. I guessed it was you. 

summo 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

>        I am seriously concerned for my health 

How do you protect yourself whilst posting and using devices... if your concern is so great why not stop posting? 

kestrelspl 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

That article has no evidence for brain cancer being caused by electromagnetic fields. It looks at the symptoms that are present in kids who happen to have brain cancer in areas of the brain that absorb the most radio frequency radiation. There's nothing in the paper about relative rates of these types of cancers relative to exposure to radiation.

I'd advise seeing someone about hypochondria rather than more googling.

For background I'm a particle physicist specialising in statistical analysis.

paul mitchell 05 Mar 2020
In reply to jkarran:

HI James. People seem to think I am paranoid or some kind of nut. I don’t mind that at all. What I DO mind is that people blindly accept the  hype that is presented to them about the advantages of 5G,without any checking the facts of the radiation involved.A GP will not assuage  my feeling that this is just an unresearched roll out of  technology that is not proven safe. ICNIRP  says that it is safe,but  ICNIRP standards are out of date and ICNIRP is accused of being bought out by the telecoms industry. 5G is not proven safe. It is  being incorporated into facial recognition cameras in the States,Britain,Australia and is already part of the oppression of the Uighurs in West China. China has the oppressive social credit system/police state. I have lived in China. Not a fun place these days. Yes,I bang on. I will stop if I am ever convinced that 5G is a safe technology.Go ahead,try to convince me.This is a debate,not a slanging match.So yes, do your own research,and don’t condescend to me about mental health.

19
paul mitchell 05 Mar 2020
In reply to wintertree:

That's a pop song.

paul mitchell 05 Mar 2020
In reply to mondite:

Find yourself a 5g antenna that is not  visible from a surveillance camera. That in itself is probably impossible. (People are so used to surveillance they think that Big Brother is just something in an Orwell novel. It ain't.)In order that the system will not be switched off when you are observed. Then keep your head close up against the transmitting antenna for 6 hours a day,every day for a week.  Maybe this is the equivalent of what happened in Wuhan. China is a brutal enough regime to do this sort of research.If you hesitate in the least to do this kind of research,maybe you also have your doubts about the safety of 5g.When 5g is rolled out into the suburbs,it will effectively be  a wifi transmission into everyone's home,that cannot be switched off by the people in those homes. The danger is in the chronic long term exposure.

You did ask how  my worries might be addressed,so I answered. Frankly, I would say that you were nuts if you did such a thing. The point is that the risks are not fully known.5G is a radar technology. During World War 2  British sailors  used to stand near the radar system  in order to keep warm on deck. Microwave,geddit ? Many of those sailors died of cancer.

  So, to repeat, I am trying to get you to think about the risks,not  to get you to BELIEVE  anything.  Thinking seems to be a painful process for some people.

10
Bob Kemp 05 Mar 2020
jkarran 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

I'm not mocking you or condescending and I certainly don't think you're a 'nut'. I think you might have developed some kind of anxiety problem and I fear YouTube's machine is preying upon it. It appears to be getting worse. I genuinely think your GP might be able to help you when you ask.

jk

Post edited at 12:15
Dave Garnett 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

>    Here is a study on brain cancer in children and young adults. This stuff is not hard to find,at all.The reason I say do your own research is that anything I present gets torn to pieces on this forum. I just want  people to investigate,not to believe. 

>        I am seriously concerned for my health and that of those who have no information on the topic.

Have you actually read this paper, Paul?

There is nothing in this paper that addresses the question of whether brain tumours even correlate with electromagnetic fields.  It merely looks at clinical features of a group of kids with the sorts of brain tumours that kids, unfortunately, get.

It is, however part of a 'study' to estimate the risks of exposure - here's the only part of the paper to refer to electromagnetic fields: 

"MOBI-Kids is a multinational case–control study set-up to estimate risk of BTs in relation to electromagnetic fields—mainly Extremely Low Frequency and radiofrequency (RF) fields—exposure from use of mobile communication device."

Now, I'm not an epidemiologist, but I would suggest that this is, in any case, doing the study the wrong way round.  Taking a group of kids with tumours, and then looking for a correlation with something that is practically ubiquitous is never going to work.  You have to somehow correlate incidence with level of exposure.

If you draw the comparison with Doll's work on smoking and lung cancer, he noticed that all the lung cancer patients he saw were smokers - but there were a lot of non-smokers in the population, even then, with whom he could do a comparison.  The correlation was so strong that, on the rare occasions he found a non-smoker in his cancer ward he predicted that they had been misdiagnosed - and they didn't die of cancer.

So, where is your cohort of children who have grown up without mobile phones or any other electromagnetic exposure.  Actually, here's a thought.  Find me a proper, original paper (not someone inappropriately meta-analysing loads other crap papers) demonstrating even a correlation (a correlation note, not causation) between child use of mobile phones over the last 20 years and an increase of brain tumours in children.  I'd be happy to read it, seriously.

Thinking it though and looking for the relevant data would at least be the next best thing to doing your own research. 

Post edited at 12:12
Blue Straggler 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

> This is a debate,not a slanging match

>    Thinking seems to be a painful process for some people.

Have you ever considered that insulting everyone is perhaps not a smart way to get them on side?

tom_in_edinburgh 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

> You did ask how  my worries might be addressed,so I answered. Frankly, I would say that you were nuts if you did such a thing. The point is that the risks are not fully known.5G is a radar technology. During World War 2  British sailors  used to stand near the radar system  in order to keep warm on deck. Microwave,geddit ? Many of those sailors died of cancer.

Apart from a 2nd world war radar doing 250 to 750kW compared with a 5G microcell at 100mW you might have a point.  There's about 2.5 million times less energy involved.

jkarran 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

> The point is that the risks are not fully known.5G is a radar technology. During World War 2  British sailors  used to stand near the radar system  in order to keep warm on deck. Microwave,geddit ? Many of those sailors died of cancer.

I'd be astonished if lots of sailors who survived the war didn't get cancer. I'd expect around one in three of them did before you consider the additional occupational exposure to known carcinogens like asbestos and mineral oil. What fraction actually did?

5G is not RADAR, RAdio Detection And Ranging, it's a mobile communications protocol and network. Mobile communications networks and devices can be and doubtless are misused for location of an individual, with or without their clear consent, that's basically necessary if you want your phone to ring. That's not unique to 5G.

I'm far more concerned about what we will do with always on always available broadband then what we do when it suddenly isn't than I am about the technology delivering it. You're right of course and I fear and demonstrating rather well that the risks a new technology brings aren't fully known or controlled.

jk

Post edited at 12:38
krikoman 05 Mar 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> Oi! That's my joke from Paul's last EMF thread!

He'll steal anything not bolted down!

mullermn 05 Mar 2020
In reply to jkarran:

> I'm not mocking you or condescending and I certainly don't think you're a 'nut'. I think you might have developed some kind of anxiety problem and I fear YouTube's machine is preying upon it. It appears to be getting worse. I genuinely think your GP might be able to help you when you ask.

> jk

Will they offer a telephone appointment?

Toerag 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

> Find yourself a 5g antenna that is not  visible from a surveillance camera. That in itself is probably impossible. (People are so used to surveillance they think that Big Brother is just something in an Orwell novel. It ain't.)In order that the system will not be switched off when you are observed. Then keep your head close up against the transmitting antenna for 6 hours a day,every day for a week.  Maybe this is the equivalent of what happened in Wuhan.

Yet people nowhere near 5G are getting CV, therefore 5G is nothing to do with CV.  Also, 5G is simply a protocol running on existing frequencies, so putting your head by an antenna at any point in the last 10 years would have subjected you to the exact same radiation.

> China is a brutal enough regime to do this sort of research.If you hesitate in the least to do this kind of research,maybe you also have your doubts about the safety of 5g.When 5g is rolled out into the suburbs,it will effectively be  a wifi transmission into everyone's home,that cannot be switched off by the people in those homes. The danger is in the chronic long term exposure.

What mechanism is that chronic long term exposure using to cause the damage?  We already know that microwave frequencies do not have the energy to damage DNA per se.  They can cause a heating effect if the power is sufficient, and the power used by a mobile handset or antenna at the distances you can get close enough to it isn't sufficient.  You get more heated up standing in the sun, or in front of a heater.

You do also know that mobile 5G isn't the same as WiFi 5g don't you?

Post edited at 13:12
WaterMonkey 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

>   Maybe this is the equivalent of what happened in Wuhan.

You told us yesterday that it was all fake news so make your mind up

wilkie14c 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

You are Chuck McGill and I claim my £5

Archy Styrigg 05 Mar 2020

I quite like the fact that we've been irradiated with 160.4 GHz (what's that, 6, 7, 8 ... G? ) Cosmic Background Radiation since the days we crawled out of the primordial slime.
Doesn't appear to have done us any harm.

jbrom 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

> I imagine that your wifi is not 5g ? Even if it is,one person and one instance hardly presents statistical significance,does it ?

Really not sure I want to rise to this and reply, but here goes anyway.

I think it's important to point out that 5GHz WiFi and 5G mobile technology are completely different things.

5GHz WiFi has been a consumer level technology for years and operates (unsurprisingly) on the 5GHz band. 

5G mobile technology is relatively newer, operates on a range of frequency bands.

Conflating the two doesn't help your argument, especially when your argument hinges around being well researched.

Stefan Jacobsen 05 Mar 2020
In reply to john arran:

Double blinded study reveals a placebo effect

> I had a gîte client who claimed to be affected by wifi signals to the point of not being able to sleep. She begged for a solution as she was not sleeping at all so I compromised by programming the router to turn wifi off during the night. She was happy and slept well. But a few days later I realised that a power cut had cancelled my timer programming and the wifi was now staying on all night after all. She didn't notice.

Post edited at 14:11
mullermn 05 Mar 2020
In reply to Stefan Jacobsen:

> Double blinded study reveals a placebo effect

... and inadvertently creates another truther with a first hand story of ‘I had a medical issue, then the nice man turned the WiFi off and I felt fine’ to reinforce the beliefs of people like Mr Mitchell. 

blurty 05 Mar 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Apart from a 2nd world war radar doing 250 to 750kW compared with a 5G microcell at 100mW you might have a point.  There's about 2.5 million times less energy involved.

When I worked at Sellafield in the 80's, local guys working on the reactors at Calder Hall would apparently irradiate their bollocks, as a short term sterilisation before a Saturday night of fun at the Old Hall disco, and a hoped-for subsequent  knee trembler.

mondite 05 Mar 2020
In reply to mullermn:

> ... and inadvertently creates another truther with a first hand story of ‘I had a medical issue, then the nice man turned the WiFi off and I felt fine’ to reinforce the beliefs of people like Mr Mitchell.


Does remind me of a believer in ghosts and that sort of shit who spent a reasonable part of a party boring me with how they could feel disturbed spirits and so forth. After a random side track I found out where they lived at which point I got quite curious how they could sleep at night given that they were pretty close to where the town gallows were and also on top of some pretty nasty fighting during the war of the roses plus a quite high likelihood of some unpleasantness during the Roman period.

Hat Dude 05 Mar 2020
In reply to blurty:

>  local guys working on the reactors at Calder Hall would apparently irradiate their bollocks, as a short term sterilisation before a Saturday night of fun at the Old Hall disco, and a hoped-for subsequent  knee trembler.

With the added benefit that the lucky local lass could locate their tackle in the dark.

Hooo 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

Seriously Paul, do you have someone you trust and respect that you can talk to in real life, not in the internet? You started off with a reasonable worry about 5g and you've disappeared down a hole full of conspiracy theories. I assume this is due to too much Googling for clickbait articles and not enough critical thinking and discussion. You clearly haven't read a lot of the stuff you post: some of it can be easily disproved by simple experiments that you can do yourself, and some of it contradicts your other scare stories. I don't see what you're hoping to gain by posting on here, since you have no interest in listening to anyone. Please talk to someone.

Rob Exile Ward 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

You're over 60. You've already lived longer than 90% of people who have ever been born. You're going to die of something. Get over it.

1
WaterMonkey 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

Genuine question Paul and I’d like an honest answer. Do you smoke weed or take any recreational drugs?

They are known to cause paranoia.

1
gravy 05 Mar 2020
In reply to WaterMonkey:

Just heavy doses of youtube and deep heat lotion - seriously Paul you need to sack off the computer and go for a walk.

cb294 05 Mar 2020
In reply to blurty:

WTF? On the other hand, radiation levels in the Irish sea seem to indicate that radiation safety was generally not that high on the priority list...

CB

Tom V 05 Mar 2020
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Cancer sufferers across the UKC will be grateful for your words of wisdom.

5
GrahamD 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

"5g" is a catch all term for many technologies, most of them being minor changes (from an RF perspective) to existing and long established RF sources.

Specifically, which set of new frequencies are you concerned with at what sort of field strengths and exposure levels ?

GrahamD 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

"5g" is a catch all term for many technologies, most of them being minor changes (from an RF perspective) to existing and long established RF sources.

Specifically, which set of new frequencies are you concerned with at what sort of field strengths and exposure levels ?

Rob Exile Ward 05 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom V:

I'm not addressing cancer sufferers across the UK - or anywhere else for that matter. I'm addressing the OP.

2 points. 1) Statistically, any effect of the cosmic death rays or whatever we've apparently been exposed can't really have affected us that much, can they? Our life expectancy is still increasing, albeit at a slower rate. 2) The OP - who is approx my age - seems to have issues about his mortality. I'm with Marcus Aurelius on this one.

paul mitchell 05 Mar 2020
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Life expectancy is now down on some younger people with early onset dementia. Where did this come from ?

   https://www.phillyvoice.com/millennials-early-onset-dementia-alzheimers/?fbclid=IwAR0G40E-q2-_WUIQs1wwGaZBcMiMu3ZvGREFnNbAzTdEquzUcXr0IJUm8fA

MG 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

>        I am seriously concerned for my health and that of those who have no information on the topic.

This paper has the the conclusions below. Why do you think this is of note here? 

"This is the largest clinical epidemiology study of BT in young people conducted so far. Many signs and symptoms were identified, dominated by headaches and nausea/vomiting. Diagnosis was generally rapid but in 12% diagnostic delay exceeded 1 year with none of the symptoms been associated with a distinctly long time until diagnosis."

DaveHK 05 Mar 2020
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

>  I'm with Marcus Aurelius on this one.

Ah yes, I remember the passage in the Meditations now "envy not the 5g you lack but be content with the 4g you have."

Post edited at 21:46
paul mitchell 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

In this discussion, how about substituting ''5G ''or 'Corona Virus' for the word ''Syria '' or ''war ''. It is about  journalistic responsibility and conformity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTqDmvkuKNk&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2eNFUeV_rvkwss2ZPoRaQaivRfLP100z6ujXBgs3UbfhEU2Gqt8n5IHgo

2
cb294 05 Mar 2020
In reply to Hat Dude:

I wonder whether these guys qualify for a Darwin award. They may not be dead (yet), but presumably removed themselves from the gene pool quite effectively!

CB

Stuart William 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

> There is plenty of evidence on the net from neurologists,and micro biologists,and electrical engineers,so yes, you seem to be unaware of those experts,so yes, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

The problem is that most of the papers you post don’t say what you claim. The one here on brain tumours makes no causal link that I can see to phones. All they did was pick tumours that presented nearest to the site of where a phone might be, and ignored tumours anywhere else. Which is fine because they don’t appear to claim to be able to draw any conclusions about the cause of the tumours. Although by mentioning phones at all it is a bit misleading as it implies there is a link, which they provide no evidence for.

However, you are drawing a totally different conclusion from their study and claiming evidence that just isn’t there. What you are doing is akin to saying “I counted all the dogs in Corby. I ignored all dogs in the rest of the world, and asked no questions about where Corby’s dogs came from. Therefore I have proven that Corby manufactures killer dogs in a secret lab.” Can you spot the flaws in that methodology?

The credibility of the Youtube links barely deserves a mention. The last one about Coronavirus was just nonsense - “here are some news articles about Coronavirus. This one has a picture of a politician who is wrong because I don’t like her face. Now here are some totally unsubstantiated opinions that I have no evidence to support”

pasbury 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

> There is plenty of evidence on the net from neurologists,and micro biologists,and electrical engineers,so yes, you seem to be unaware of those experts,so yes, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

>    Here is a study on brain cancer in children and young adults. This stuff is not hard to find,at all.The reason I say do your own research is that anything I present gets torn to pieces on this forum. I just want  people to investigate,not to believe. 

>        I am seriously concerned for my health and that of those who have no information on the topic.

This is just the same sort of thing that anti vaccination nutters post.

Sean_J 05 Mar 2020
Stuart William 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

> Life expectancy is now down on some younger people with early onset dementia. Where did this come from ?

Life expectancy has always been reduced by dementia. This is nothing new. Dementia is a progressive deterioration of the brain. The brain is a pretty important organ, so it tends to affect our lifespan when it deteriorates.

Your life expectancy is also reduced if your lungs/kidneys/liver stop working. This fact also tells us absolutely nothing about 5G. 

Your question/statement is again not supported by the evidence you post, and barely makes sense. The report isn’t even looking at life expectancy, it just mentions it for context.

Stuart William 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

I’ll just leave this here for you Paul. It might save you some googling since someone has already summarised the research that’s actually relevant and worth reading. 

Do mobiles cause cancer? “No... There also aren't any good explanations for how mobile phones could cause cancer.”

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/cancer-controversies/do-mobile-phones-cause-cancer 

Edit: also this. 

”Well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure.

... symptoms... might arise from environmental factors unrelated to EMF. Examples may include “flicker” from fluorescent lights, glare and other visual problems with VDUs, and poor ergonomic design of computer workstations...

symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects, rather than the EMF exposure itself.”

https://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs296/en/

Having done my own research as requested, seeking out reputable and expert sources, I’m not seeing anything of concern to me. But I would echo what others have said - if you are having health problems then go to your GP, describe the symptoms, and listen to their advice on possible causes and treatments. 

Post edited at 23:34
paul mitchell 05 Mar 2020
Blue Straggler 05 Mar 2020
In reply to Sean_J:

You haven’t quite won the Internet but you’ve certainly won UKC! 

paul mitchell 05 Mar 2020
paul mitchell 05 Mar 2020
Blue Straggler 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

Have you ever considered that your persistent ignoring or rejection of polite counter arguments in favour of trawling for confirmation-bias links, might just make you look rude and idiotic enough to erode any credibility?

Debate and discourse works in both directions. You might get more respect if you actually engaged properly with people instead of just lashing out.

I think a lot of posters have been very generous and patient with you. I am not so sure that you deserve it. 

Tom V 05 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

While it's true that the trend among UKC users is definitely one opposing Paul's fears and misgivings, I would like to point out again that several significant bodies are not so dismissive in their attitudes, including a recently updated European Parliament briefing on the subject which states that ".....consensus is far from being reached..."

Post edited at 23:49
Stuart William 05 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

Right, so no actual response from you? I’ll engage with you on any of the points I have mentioned if you would like. But if your tactic is just avoidance and distraction by posting yet more spurious links rather than discussing the claims you have already made, then I can’t be bothered

Blue Straggler 05 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom V:

I would like to bring it to your attention that as far as I can remember, I have not once debunked anything Paul has said, nor have I attacked him .

Post edited at 23:49
Tom V 05 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

I would consider implying that his approach was "rude and idiotic" to constitute a bit of an attack.

1
paul mitchell 05 Mar 2020
Blue Straggler 06 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom V:

> I would consider implying that his approach was "rude and idiotic" to constitute a bit of an attack.

I didn’t imply that though. I implied that some people might see it like that, and built a ring-fence of disclaimers, in a sincere manner. There is a difference, Tom V. I safeguard my posts like this, you must have spotted it 

Post edited at 00:02
Blue Straggler 06 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

Do you think 5G emits ionising radiation like xrays and radioactive materials?

do you think 4G doesn’t?

I was just thinking that I have a detector for ionising radiation in my office, set up to sound an alarm in case one of my x ray machines somehow starts leaking radiation. 
 

I could perhaps put my phone (using 4G) next to it and see if it sets it off.

If I have time, I might borrow a really sensitive meter for ionising radiation, which picks up the cosmic ray background that we are always susceptible to. It picks up nothing from my Xray machines at full power because they are very heavily shielded. I have not tested a mobile phone on it. 
 

Would you be interested in these tests and results?

Tom V 06 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

I've never heard of safeguarding in this context before, nor ring -fencing for that matter. All will be duly noted  before the next time you remind me I should know your methods.

Blue Straggler 06 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom V:

Just go back and read the post we are talking about. You should see that there is no personal attack on Paul. 
 

Just to give some context, a colleague last year advised me that the tone of some of my email and verbal communications with another department, could be seen as being a bit harsh. I never intended to be harsh but I accepted this advice and altered my tone to remove ambiguity. I did not take my colleague’s advice to be any sort of attack. 

Blue Straggler 06 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom V:

I never mentioned “methods”. I never said you “should know”. 

aln 06 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> a colleague last year advised me that the tone of some of my email and verbal communications with another department, could be seen as being a bit harsh.

As do some of your posts on UKc.

I never intended to be harsh but I accepted this advice and altered my tone to remove ambiguity.

You haven't removed that ambiguity on here. I personally think I've got your tone, but I can see why people might not.

As for your comments on paul mitchell's threads I think you've been very generous in your efforts to engage with him. But it's probably to no avail. 

Blue Straggler 06 Mar 2020
In reply to aln:

I know you know that the ambiguity of my tone on the UKC is quite deliberate and “tightrope-walking”. Social media is basically a bit of a big computer game for me (without disrespecting participants). Sometimes I wobble on the tightrope and I face up to that. In the case of Paul Mitchell I have not wobbled. I am treating him and his posts and ideas and opinions with the appropriate amount of respect  

Post edited at 01:12
Ridge 06 Mar 2020
In reply to blurty:

> When I worked at Sellafield in the 80's, local guys working on the reactors at Calder Hall would apparently irradiate their bollocks, as a short term sterilisation before a Saturday night of fun at the Old Hall disco, and a hoped-for subsequent  knee trembler.

Not sure where the '''bollock irradiation port" actually is on a Magnox reactor, but a night out in West Cumbria suggests there might be something in that story.

I think I've told this before, but during the war my Dad was in the Navy on convoy escorts on the North Atlantic and Arctic routes. Standing near the radar to get nice and toasty warm as it swept across you was common practice. He made it to his 90's.

DaveHK 06 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

> Lovely dash of irony from this nurse....

I find it really hard to imagine someone being capable of watching that. 30 seconds of it made me feel like I was developing a brain tumour right there and then.

Hooo 06 Mar 2020
In reply to Sean_J:

> Paul Mitchell causes cancer too apparently:

Are you suggesting that this is all an attempt at a cover up by Paul Mitchell? He's causing cancer​ with his shampoo, and trying to blame it on EMFs. Of course, it all makes sense now.

ohsmeg 06 Mar 2020
In reply to Sean_J:

Thanks - made me laugh out loud.

Tom V 06 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

I know. It's just that you remind me more and more of Holmes upbraiding Watson over some little oversight 

Irk the Purist 06 Mar 2020
In reply to Ridge:

I used to install microwave antennas on phone masts and had always heard stories of how old school riggers used to warm their lunch in front of the big transmitters. I never had enough room for my lunch in my haul bag but I did once try to keep a cup of tea warm in front of a transmitter I installed on a roof. The tea went cold and I got a bollocking as the bandwidth on the link was shit.

jkarran 06 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

> Life expectancy is now down on some younger people with early onset dementia. Where did this come from ?    https://www.phillyvoice.com/millennials-early-onset-dementia-alzheimers/?fbclid=IwAR0G40E-q2-_WUIQs1wwGaZBcMiMu3ZvGREFnNbAzTdEquzUcXr0IJUm8fA

Good question, where do you think it came from? It's not evenly distributed geographically suggesting there may be an environmental, political or commercial influence, nor is it evenly distributed across the sexes suggesting something social perhaps. This is the country where lead contaminated drinking water at city scale is still a live issue, where industrial decline and lax regulation have lead to a lot of corner cutting and contamination, also where poorly regulated fracking has contaminated water and land. Millennials are really also the guinea pigs for ubiquitous industrial food from birth but that's true nationwide and across the sexes.

Equally it could be an artefact of changes in which social groups can afford and take health insurance in modern America.

jk

jkarran 06 Mar 2020
In reply to jkarran:

Thinking some more Mitch, the generation highlighted is the one that has been exposed to 20 years of fairly high intensity middle east combat and many recruits are from the poorer rust belt regions where the increase seems more acute. Could the increase perhaps be occupational exposure to something, perhaps these are miscategorised blast injuries. Perhaps that could also explain the relatively greater increase among women who can now participate in combat and increasingly in contact sport too. Also there have been marked social changes during this period, particularly with respect to smoking and alcohol consumption with that increasing among women relative to men. Early onset dementia is mercifully quite rare so small absolute increases in incidence produce large relative ones, while it may seem absurd adding a small group such as brain damaged combat veterans to the sample could potentially be enough.

Basically there are lots of possibilities, some more credible than others and it's unlikely to be any single one of them. You'd need more and better data and a rigorous approach to start picking this apart properly to identify potential causes or even if there really is a change!

jk

Post edited at 11:05
DubyaJamesDubya 06 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

>      Never heard of electrosensitivity ?

>    Well,I am electrosensitive,on  occasion. So when people talk about rabbit holes,I often think how little people really know about the topic of  human reaction to various electro magnetic wavelengths. Certain EMF's make me ill. 

>          If you want to do your own research on this matter, I recommend  Google Scholar. In search,type in ''EMF and cancer'',or ''microwaves and cancer'', ''radio frequencies and cancer''. Hundreds of papers will   become available to read on screen.  Try not to accept everything the media tells you. The BBC for example has invested heavily in 5g roll out,so can hardly be unbiased on the topic. The Lancet is another interesting website on EMF and cancer.

>     Do your own research.

What are your symptoms?

Blue Straggler 06 Mar 2020
In reply to jkarran:

> Thinking some more Mitch, the generation highlighted is the one that has been exposed to 20 years of fairly high intensity middle east combat and many recruits are from the poorer rust belt regions where the increase seems more acute. Could the increase perhaps be occupational exposure to something, perhaps these are miscategorised blast injuries.


JK, the depleted uranium thing is SO 2009!

jkarran 06 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Yeah, I was mostly thinking of mechanical and psychological damage but the chemistry of modern war is pretty grubby too.

To pick a recent high profile example, this sort of thing repeated over 20 years in every mortar hit base, every blown up humvee, it has to leave some kind of fingerprint back home https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/28/us-troops-iran-brain-injury-attack-iraq

jk

Post edited at 12:33
TobyA 06 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> JK, the depleted uranium thing is SO 2009!

I worked for UNEP investigating DU use in Kosovo and Montenegro in 2001! We published a big report on it that summer. It was more of a Gulf War and Kosovo War thing, rather than Iraq war. I always thought once the insurgents in Iraq had got their shaped charges in their IEDs sorted, sitting in an Abrams battle tank surrounded by DU armour suddenly became a really comforting thought rather than a potential health risk.

Blue Straggler 06 Mar 2020
In reply to TobyA:

I meant more "ill informed conspiracy theorists wittering on about DU in their crappy blogs" was a 2009 thing (and generally about the Gulf War(s) - see: "ill-informed" )  

paul mitchell 06 Mar 2020
paul mitchell 06 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

Here's a lovely drone ,5g drone, that is just a figment of my imagination. Of course,it won't be part of any SURVEILLANCE network ? https://www.facebook.com/global5g/photos/a.2825969444112110/3568283239880723/?type=3&theater

4
paul mitchell 06 Mar 2020
4
Ridge 06 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

> Here's a lovely drone ,5g drone, that is just a figment of my imagination. Of course,it won't be part of any SURVEILLANCE network ? https://www.facebook.com/global5g/photos/a.2825969444112110/3568283239880723/?type=3&theater

Paul, you've blown your epic trolling spree!

I think linking to a spoof FB group that includes research from the Dunning-Kruger Institute for Applied Electromagnetism has just pushed the envelope a bit too much:

https://www.facebook.com/2824417747600613/posts/3618983401477373/

paul mitchell 06 Mar 2020
In reply to Ridge:

Irony has a place. The point is to get some of the bovine types on here to have a look.

7
MG 06 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

> Irony has a place. The point is to get some of the bovine types on here to have a look.

Cow speaking. I've had a look. It's s bollocks. Ok? 

freeheel47 06 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

have you tried foil around your head, or perhaps chicken wire? 

Hooo 06 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

Wow, that's a bit rich considering that many people on here have spent their time reading and watching the shite you've been posting and they've bothered to respond with an intelligent critique. Meanwhile you clearly haven't bothered to read it yourself before posting, and refuse to engage with anyone.

lorentz 06 Mar 2020
In reply to MG:

> Cow speaking. I've had a look. It's total bullsh*t. Ok? 

FTFY

Post edited at 18:58
Tom V 06 Mar 2020
In reply to freeheel47:

What a novel idea.

Archy Styrigg 06 Mar 2020
In reply to freeheel47:

> have you tried foil around your head?


It does work.  I wrapped my mobile in it once and no one could ring me!

Blue Straggler 06 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

> The point is to get some of the bovine types on here to have a look.

Once again I ask, do you think that insulting people is an effective way to win them over? How’s this strategy been working for you so far? 

paul mitchell 06 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Mea culpa.   Generally I am polite. Occasionally the rudeness of others gets to me. This is one of those times. I didn't name any single person. Some of you I could think of  more savage epithets than 'bovine'.The point is,you either think this technology is safe,or you have your doubts.There are cities and countries in the world who have placed a moratorium on the introduction of 5G. Would the trolls here say those cities and countries are foolish? You might ask yourself why they have done that.

   How I present the  tech is ultimately of no relevance. The way the individual perceives it in everyday  life is what is relevant. Sticking your head above the parapet on UKC is always painful. I certainly don't do it for my own amusement.  We shall see how 5g pans out. We shall see how ''corona virus '' pans out. I suspect there is a link.Wuhan was one of the test areas for 5g. Wuhan has a virus research institution. Who knows where the truth lies. Like I have said repeatedly,look for yourself.5G is presented as an aid to the public. I see it as a further imposition of surveillance and addiction technology. It can be used as a military weapon.It can be used for riot control. These are not my opinions,they are facts.China uses 5g as part of their Social Credit System.Surveillance and coercion, pure and simple. China uses is it to arrest Uighurs and to enslave them in factories on the least pretext. At least 1 million Uighurs,possibly more.

     I am accused of not engaging,but considering the bile spewed at my by various trolls,is there any wonder? I generally reckon that people will cover the points I raise  without any need for my intercession.Like I said,I do not come on UKC to engage in a slanging match.People argue about the most irrelevant tosh on some posts,while many seem unaware of the way our society is slowly being restricted in mobility and freedom of expression. All I am doing is pointing out the risks. 5g is a carcinogenic technology,a weapon technology and a surveillance technology. It is a lot more than some   wonderful new magic for rapid downloads.If a couple of dozen of you realise that and try to make others aware ,I will not mind the usual low opinion held regarding my motives.https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=microwave+crowd+control&&view=detail&mid=12EC2D57028F83B2BA2812EC2D57028F83B2BA28&&FORM=VDRVRV

THis  is a study based on a small  sample group. Argue as you wish. I don't see how you can argue that mobile phones are safe.https://www.nhs.uk/news/cancer/long-term-mobile-phone-use-and-brain-cancer/

Post edited at 00:21
9
Stuart William 07 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

I must have missed these facts you mention, because they aren’t in any of the links you have shared so far. We’ve read the evidence you’ve provided and it varies between the totally irrelevant and the totally unsubstantiated.

I don’t really understand the surveillance link. People also use the internet, phones, eyes, cameras, and all manner of other things as tools for surveillance. Do we boycott all of those as well? Removing 5G from the picture won’t make China a utopian paradise. The issues there long predate 5G I’m afraid. 

paul mitchell 07 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart William:

The London Metropolitan police arrested a man for covering his face with his coat and not allowing them to photograph him in the street. This is one reason I often don't engage til the end of most people's posting. Were you aware of this case ? The police had a big white van that was scanning and photographing people in a London street,simply to add to their  facial recognition database. The man complained,was forcibly held until his face could be recognised. He was then arrested,taken to the station and charged with obstruction or some such. He was fined around £90. We are moving toward a police state,little by little,covertly. Whatever,I say,someone is going to nitpick and say that this offering does not constitute evidence.https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/16/moment-man-fined-90-hiding-face-police-facial-recognition-cameras-9571463/

In USA we find....https://www.activistpost.com/2020/01/san-diegos-4000-smart-streetlights-are-still-recording-24-7-with-cameras-and-microphones.html

Post edited at 00:49
1
Stuart William 07 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

Firstly the sceptic in me can’t help but notice that it sounds like the gentleman probably got a fine for verbally abusing an officer after “getting his back up” and “basically telling him to f*ck off”. Which has nothing to do with the technology being tested. He was also not arrested as you claim, just fined. According to the article the trial was also not about building a database of faces, it was searching an existing database of wanted faces (although that bit I would be a little sceptical about too). But again we have a link that doesn’t actually say what you claim it to. This doesn’t make it seem like you really read or critically assess the information you post. 

Interesting case there though. Thanks for sharing. I would agree that I am not totally comfortable with the actions of the police there. However I really can’t see what that has to do with 5G, Coronavirus, or electrosensitivity.

On some level 5G will almost certainly play a role in surveillance systems, as does just about every other communication technology in existence. It would be bizarre if it didn’t. Drones, cameras etc are all already commonplace - they don’t need 5G. So I don’t understand why surveillance suddenly becomes a concern just because it is on 5G. 

Either way, the technology is not the cause, nor the bit worth getting worked up about. It’s just a tool, like cameras and notepads. If you want to campaign against the human rights abuses or over-reaching powers go for it, but it feels like you are missing the target.

Do you think that banning 5G will bring an end to state surveillance? 

Deadeye 07 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

Wooooweeewooowoowooweewooowaaahwoooo.....

Get Fox and Dinah in here now.

GrahamD 07 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

For the sake of some clarity it might be worth separating concerns over surveillance (which really doesn't need 5g to happen) and concerns over EM fields (which again are nothing specific to 5g, which in itself is a ragtag of tweaks to existing networks and some very low range millimetric stuff)

Hooo 07 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

If you were to start a thread about your worries about state surveillance then I'm sure you'd get a good discussion going. This is a real issue and there is solid evidence that governments, including our own, are going way too far in monitoring their citizens.

But this is nothing to do with 5G. Sure, 5G communications will be used to gather information, but so will all other communication methods. They tap landline phones, does that mean that landline phone technology is bad?

You've been posting links that you haven't read, you even posted a spoof link without noticing, and when that was pointed out you claimed it was ironic. Do you think we're all stupid enough to fall for that? If you want to be treated with respect then you need to treat others with respect.

Any moron can search the web for articles containing "EMF and cancer' and post links in a public forum. If you want to be taken seriously on here, you need to actually read and understand the article. Then, if you still find it convincing post a link, listen to the genuine criticism (ignoring any abuse ) and use it to reassess your understanding. You will learn some tips about how to critically assess information, and you might even find some genuine evidence that backs up your point.

Blue Straggler 07 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

Thanks Paul, for your comprehensive, calm and measured reply. It is very useful that you’ve brought your concerns about surveillance and police states back into the arena, as I think that those concerns had been somewhat lost in the “noise” of all your links about weaponisation. 
Look at the tone and quality of the posts from others, since you replied to me at 23:58 Friday. All but one of them is also polite even whilst disagreeing with you. That has to be an improvement. 

mullermn 07 Mar 2020
In reply to Hooo:

> But this is nothing to do with 5G. > You've been posting links that you haven't read,

It’s not even clear, having paid cursory attention to these rants, what exactly Paul thinks 5G is, at this point?

Originally this started as a badly informed but vaguely logical fear that the 5G communications network might have the potential to cause cancer, but the composite of all these recent articles leaves something with such wide ranging capabilities it’s essentially illuminati magic. 

Blue Straggler 07 Mar 2020
In reply to mullermn:

I think - and I say this not to mock Paul even though it will seem that that is exactly what I am doing - that he thinks it’s a communication protocol that also happens to be some sort of experimental “ray gun” that can be used to deliberately induce radiation sickness in individuals or in populations 

paul mitchell 07 Mar 2020
Blue Straggler 07 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

Paul, this is not a peer reviewed academic paper. It is a nearly 1100 page blog that somehow the author has managed to “write” in just under a month (note - he holds patents on “text mining” technologies which suggests that a lot of this has been created automatically). 
 

I am sceptical 

Hooo 07 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

Another link that you clearly haven't read. Why do you keep doing this? What do you think you are going to achieve? 

This is a forum, it's a place for conversation, use it.

Stuart William 07 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

This is unfortunately starting to make me think of "the boy who cried wolf". The links you bombard these threads with tend to be very low in quality, credibility, and relevance. Your approach feels somewhat aggressive and often comes across as rude which doesn't help.

Your posting history is rapidly eroding anyone's inclination to trust what you post. This much is evident from the responses you get. If you ever do find anything credible and robust to share, you may find all you have achieved is to ensure that no-one is listening any more.

Please show both yourself and us some respect by reading the links you post properly and thinking critically about them. If they still seem worth sharing then engage in an actual reciprocal conversation with people about them.

To be honest, I've reached a point where I think engaging with your posts does nothing but encourage you to spend even more time scouring the internet for highly suspect information. I am not sure that is benefiting you, and it certainly doesn't feel like it is of any benefit to me. So while I can't speak for anyone else, I can say that your approach has succeeded in making sure that I am no longer listening. I somehow doubt I am the only one.

Post edited at 19:26
john arran 07 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart William:

I've known Paul for decades and I know for sure that he's intelligent and more than capable of rational critique of information and online sources. I've also known someone rather closer to me who disappeared down what seems to be a similar rabbit hole of distrust of anything vaguely official combined with an unjustified credulity of what others would term conspiracy theories.

I'm not convinced there is anything that could be said on here or anywhere else that would bring about a return to genuine critical thinking, meaning equally critical of both conspiracy purveyors and official propagandists. Just as you can't convince someone to stop smoking unless they're prepared to hear the message, so it's really up to such individuals to want to start questioning both sides rather than just the official line.

3
MG 07 Mar 2020
In reply to john arran:

> rather than just the official line.

What is an "official line"?  With almost all these conspiracies the phrase is used to denigrate scientific understanding or reported facts.  Very rarely however is there in fact an official line.  Almost always it's multiple informed conclusions from individuals, groups, newspapers etc. leading to coherent picture  It is not a helpful phrase.

petemeads 07 Mar 2020
In reply to MG:

Try dietary information for an exmple of an official line, then do some reading around on the web for the alternative views. Official lines can be driven by big business, even though they look like consensus...

SenzuBean 07 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

It’s terribly ironic that you bleat about the horrors of surveillance, by wilfully submitting hours of your time to youtube and facebook surveillance. You don’t even know what an fbclid is! What you have is a chronic paranoia being wildly exacerbated by algorithm polarization. As others have masterfully explained, the dangers of high frequency radiation at low power (and distance, inverse square!) are vastly less than sleep loss and depression.

If you care so much about this, throw away your electronics, grow your own food and read an intro to electrical engineering textbook without distractions.

[I am a qualified Electrical engineer]

toad 07 Mar 2020
In reply to SenzuBean:

 Qualified electrical engineer? You're just a stooge for big EMF

NBR 07 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

That phillyvoice article about early onset dementia includes.

"While the underlying cause is not clear, advances in technology are certainly allowing for earlier and more definitive diagnosis. Regardless, those who develop dementia or Alzheimer's at an early age will likely require caregiving, either from family members or healthcare providers. The time, cost and impact on families can be significant and can require additional support as these diseases progress." emphasis mine.

So as to a cause maybe there isn't one we have just got better at diagnosis.

Or maybe there is, but if there is it is unkown at the momment. You can't just add 2 and 2 and get 5 'cos that is the answer you want.

Also the paper you referenced earlier that uses MOBI-Kids data just doesn't say what you think it does.

Despite finishing a few years back MOBI-Kids has not released its conclusions yet.

I am not aware of any double blinded studies demonstrating electrosensitivity is real, the ones that I know of show a no effect or even nocebo effect.

Look I know it looks like everyone is jumping on you here but this stuff matters. These are important questions that do need to be properly investigated, which is why they have been and it doesn't help to misrepresent things.

Post edited at 23:02
Blue Straggler 07 Mar 2020
In reply to NBR

> Look I know it looks like everyone is jumping on you here 

Not claiming credit or virtue-signalling but it does seem that the tone of the comments to Paul has really become a lot more civil since his long reply to my query about whether he thinks lashing out at people is useful. 
 

It is a nice thing to see. 

5
paul mitchell 09 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

I call myself Mitch these days.....

Here is a paper on health effects of EMF and microwaves.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK208983/

2
petemeads 10 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

Hi Mitch - interesting reading. GWEN was abandoned in 1994, it interfered with the power companies systems, but the number of papers it created due to health concerns was impressive. Yes, at high powers you get heating effects with a range of frequencies, and low frequency magnetic fields (from power lines) might be worrying to folk living directly beneath, but the general conclusion is that there is nothing to worry about for the general public. None of this relates particularly to 5G and terahertz frequencies though...

Hooo 10 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

Genuine question here, I'm not trying to take the piss or wind you up.

I read a bit of that paper, and as far as I can see it's a reputable paper from a good source. It's basically saying that there have been lots of tests with microwave frequencies and apart from the well known heating effects at high power there have been no harmful effects found.

So, you've posted a paper quoting the official line from the official source, which appears to contradict your previous arguments. What's your take on it? Are you saying it's wrong?

Post edited at 11:13
cb294 10 Mar 2020
In reply to Hooo:

Female RFM mice were exposed to 0.8-GHz microwave radiation....  ....The only statistically significant finding was an increase in body weight of animals older than 86 wk in exposed mice over control animals....

I always suspected that my microwave makes me fat, but thought that the mechanism is not directly through the radiation!

Looking at such meta-studies / reviews mainly reminds me that most medical statistics are shit: You simply cannot take two groups, treat them differently, and then look at a thousand parameters to see whether there is one where the numbers seem to be significant. Thisis called fishing for correlations: Almost by definition you will find a chance, "significant" effect in one of 20 or 100 aspects you analyse (depending on the stringency you appear to demand).

So, by pure chance, for the UW rats they found some link to benign phaechromocytome. So what.

CB

Harry Jarvis 10 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

That's a 27 year old paper which concludes:

'In sum, studies on physiologic effects of ELF fields have yielded little evidence that exposure to the low-frequency fields from GWEN antennae in areas of most likely public access would represent a health risk.'

And has been pointed out, the GWEN programme was abandoned in 1994. 

captain paranoia 10 Mar 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> And has been pointed out, the GWEN programme was abandoned in 1994. 

Hah: that's what They say... But any conspiracist knows, They lie. Chemtrails. Space lasers. Thermite charges. Grassy knoll. Lizard overlords. Area 51. 5G mobile. Coronavirus. All hushed up. Obviously. Duh...

Ridge 10 Mar 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

Not any ordinary thermite, nano thermite.

Post edited at 20:47
paul mitchell 10 Mar 2020
paul mitchell 10 Mar 2020
cb294 10 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

No need to even look at your links, but anything by published by Hindawi is just the scraps rejected anywhere else (i.e., by journals with a functioning peer review). I can't be bothered to click on the links that seem to lead to some more serious publications either: From your posting history I am sure you would not have read or understood whatever paper hides behind these links.

I have just met an old classmate of mine, she threw away a well paid job and essentially gave away her house for a pittance, just to move into an old builders' wagon parked in a field a few km away, where she will be free from evil 5G radiation for the foreseeable future. I am sure that she, like you, experiences true health issues, but I am not, in either case, convinced that this is actuallly due to EM radiation. On the other issues, e.g. 5G being used as a tool of mass surveillance, I am more on your side.

I am a scientist, not a medic, but if you want to discuss your health worries about 5G radiation, feel free to contact me more privately by PM.

Cheers,

CB

edited for some of the typos, but to get it all correct is a bit late following the Leipzig - Spurs game...

Post edited at 23:27
Hooo 11 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

Oh FFS, I give up.

You should give up too. You could have had a good discussion on here with people who know what they're ​talking about, people who have done real research. Several people have tried to start a conversation with you in a polite and respectful manner, and you have completely ignored them. The only thing you have achieved with your posts is to firmly convince everyone on here that you are suffering from mental health issues.

I hope that this obsession you show on here is not all consuming. I hope that you are coping fine with normal life, and that you've just picked UKC as your outlet for this particular hobby horse. But, remember that people on UKC don't know anything about the rest of your life. All we see is your posts on here, and judging by your posts you come across as a paranoid tinfoil-hatted nutjob. I'm not saying you are, I'm saying that's the impression your posts give people.

Carrying on with this is not going to do you any good. Anyone sympathetic is going to give up and drop away, and you are just going to be left with piss-takers. This is not going to be a useful or positive experience.

jkarran 11 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

> MISCARRIAGE...

Please go and talk to your GP while you still can, this isn't healthy and I really do think they might be able to help.

jk

ThunderCat 11 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

> Try to let a bit of  new thinking enter your closed mind.

“It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.” ― Carl Sagan

ThunderCat 11 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

>      Never heard of electrosensitivity ?

>    Well,I am electrosensitive,on  occasion.

>     Do your own research.

Genuine question here, but in the spirit of research would you ever be willing to take part in an experiment to test this out?  I'm keeping an open mind...

Strict laboratory conditions, double blind testing, agreed upon protocols for both yourself and the testers on what is to be tested, how it is carried out and how it is measured etc etc etc

If you were placed in a large room with ten boxes, some of which contained an active electrical device, some of which contained nothing, some of which contained a glass of water...would you be able to identify the electrical devices in each?

I'm sure there are a lot of people on here who are qualified and eager enough to help set up the experiment.

The Wild Scallion 11 Mar 2020
Toerag 11 Mar 2020
In reply to The Wild Scallion:

Definitely some truth in that, an associate of mine has recently gone all 'truthseeker', mainly on the 'cannabis can cure everything' bandwagon. Coincidentally, he left the business he had set up & was passionate about, and split up with his long term girlfriend in the past year or so.

The Wild Scallion 11 Mar 2020
In reply to Toerag:

> Definitely some truth in that, an associate of mine has recently gone all 'truthseeker', mainly on the 'cannabis can cure everything' bandwagon. Coincidentally, he left the business he had set up & was passionate about, and split up with his long term girlfriend in the past year or so.

I deleted my original reply as my threads are being pulled again .

I can discuss this with you via PM .

For now I'm going dark.

This place is getting to me , my stalker is at work.

2
NBR 11 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

Re:  https://rep.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/rep/152/6/R263.xml

OK just read that, I'm curious could you, instead of just dropping the reference without comment, explain in your own words  what you think the paper is, and what it says?

Jim Fraser 11 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

There is a massive range of radio propagations in urban areas of developed countries. Apart from one country that are so fkd up that they are leaving the EU, life expectancy has continued to rise in spite of all the ever-present radio waves on a scale way beyond what existed or was contemplated when people first started making up horror stories about it. 

Once 5G is rolled out, the highest level of radio power that most people will be exposed to will remain home wifi.

People are more likely to die from the effects of high blood pressure experienced when trying to access websites designed for 5G on a rubbish rural 1mbps connection.

ThunderCat 11 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

>      Never heard of electrosensitivity ?

>    Well,I am electrosensitive,on  occasion.

I'm disappointed that you've not responded to my question about researching this a little bit. 

Blue Straggler 11 Mar 2020
In reply to ThunderCat:

You may be disappointed but are you surprised ?

paul mitchell 11 Mar 2020
Blue Straggler 12 Mar 2020
In reply to ThunderCat:

If  were a moderator I would delete all threads started by Paul, and impose a ban on him. However, as he has not breached any guidelines, this would make me a terrible moderator. My compromise would be to throw all his posts into the Pub forum and then lock them 

paul mitchell 12 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

I prefer to be called Mitch.

A woman complained that she did not want 5g outside her house. She was ignored. She then got brain cancer.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmJ4mNr6FWI&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1wyIREPSG39_BFU0o864czAL2zW9EhhT6xcmjJLXkabUFU_3Z6UikWjBI&app=desktop

10
mullermn 12 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

If I say your posts are giving me brain cancer will you stop posting them? It’s got just as much chance of being true. 

petemeads 12 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

If the IEEE paper you have linked is valid then you would appear to be vindicated in your concerns.

ThunderCat 12 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> You may be disappointed but are you surprised ?

Not especially

ThunderCat 12 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

As per your private message asking me to repeat the question. (which is odd, given that the original is still visible a little higher you the thread), here it is.

-------

Genuine question here, but in the spirit of research would you ever be willing to take part in an experiment to test this out?  I'm keeping an open mind...

Strict laboratory conditions, double blind testing, agreed upon protocols for both yourself and the testers on what is to be tested, how it is carried out and how it is measured etc etc etc

If you were placed in a large room with ten boxes, some of which contained an active electrical device, some of which contained nothing, some of which contained a glass of water...would you be able to identify the electrical devices in each?

I'm sure there are a lot of people on here who are qualified and eager enough to help set up the experiment.

La benya 12 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

A boy complained about a suspicious dog outside his school and now he has leprosy... Www.absoluteballs.com/consiparcytheory/paulsgonewrong 

Thugitty Jugitty 12 Mar 2020
In reply to petemeads:

> If the IEEE paper you have linked is valid then you would appear to be vindicated in your concerns.

The paper looks to have been through some kind of peer review process at the IEEE. 

lorentz 12 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

I have too have Electro-sensitivity.

Whenever I hear it, I just can't help myself... I slip into my red lycra onesie and throwdown on an old piece of lino. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDMv3IHGpnA

Edit Who's your favourite... Definitely Mr Wave right. Just awesome.

Post edited at 16:26
wercat 12 Mar 2020
In reply to lorentz:

does Kraftwerk bring you out in lumps and wheezing fits?

lorentz 12 Mar 2020
In reply to wercat:

It brings me out in oldschool lunch box cheese triangles... I use the foil wrappers to make hats. (Purely to ease spinning on my head though. Nothing more sinister than that.)

"She's a model, I vant to zee her again"

Andy Hardy 12 Mar 2020
In reply to Thugitty Jugitty:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/mar/12/5g-safe-radiation-watchdog-health

Although "they" would it's safe, wouldn't "they"?

elliot.baker 12 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

This is off Better Call Saul I've just started watching season 1 on Netflix!

NBR 12 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9016183

OK, here we go.

'Electromagnetic Radiation Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?'

This paper does appear to support your worries with its conclusions but there are some points to consider.

1) The Journal, IEEE access. To quote from their own website.

'EEE Access® is a multidisciplinary, applications-oriented, all-electronic archival journal that continuously presents the results of original research or development across all of IEEE's fields of interest. Supported by author publication fees, its hallmarks are a rapid peer review and publication process with open access to all readers.'

It has an impact factor ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor ) of just over 4 which is Ok but nothing special. BTW Impact factor is not without flaws but it does tend to give you a quick and dirty assessment of a journal's standing

So it appears to be an OK journal but one that specialises in electrical engineering issues not medicine/physiology etc. This means you should be cautious about when the paper steps beyond electrical engineering as the paper does in its conclusions.

2) The authors. None have any expertise at all in biology.

3) Follow the references, how good are there sources? The paper uses 'The Building Biology Standard' criteria for 'no concern' to 'extreme concern' to come up with its conclusions but where do those standard come from? Well despite spending considerable time following the relevent references (10 and 11 in paper) I could not get back to a reputable source. I did bump into what I consider to be some serious 'woo' red-flags though.

4) However many of the references do go back to reputable sources but they don't always seem to be fitting with what the authors are linking them to. Here is a glaring example.

Section 5, G of the paper:

'G. Effects on Mental and Cognitive Health

Many neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease and motor neuron disease are found to be caused and triggered by EMR exposure [37].'

Wow sounds serious lets follow the reference,

N. K. Sharma, R. Sharma, D. Mathur, S. Sharad, G. Minhas, K. Bhatia, A. Anand, S. P. Ghosh, "Role of ionizing radiation in neurodegenerative diseases", Frontiers Aging Neurosci., vol. 10, pp. 134, May 2018.

( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5963202/ )

Hang on that says 'ionising radition' whats that got to do with wi-fi etc, let's read further.

'Abstract

Ionizing radiation (IR) from terrestrial sources is continually an unprotected peril to human beings. However, the medical radiation and global radiation background are main contributors to human exposure and causes of radiation sickness. At high-dose exposures acute radiation sickness occurs, whereas chronic effects may persist for a number of years. Radiation can increase many circulatory, age related and neurodegenerative diseases. Neurodegenerative diseases occur a long time after exposure to radiation, as demonstrated in atomic bomb survivors, and are still controversial. This review discuss the role of IR in neurodegenerative diseases and proposes an association between neurodegenerative diseases and exposure to IR.'

I know IEEE access claims one of its hallmarks is 'rapid peer-assessment', but this is beyond shoddy.

5) I also followed other references eg [35].

That leads to:

'DNA is a fractal antenna in electromagnetic fields'

( https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/09553002.2011.538130 )

Sounds impressive even more so when you see it was published in,

The International Journal of Radiation Biology, but that is another low impact journal (2.266).

So overall I will be taking it with a pinch of salt.

Sorry for such a long winded post, but this is what you need to do when looking at a paper. Not just skim see if it agrees with what you think and then just throw it out there.

Hooo 13 Mar 2020
In reply to NBR:

Thanks for doing the work and posting your findings on that paper. I for one appreciate you making the effort. I do find it disturbing that a reputable peer-reviewed publication has published a paper and none of the peer reviewers has spotted that some of the references are totally irrelevant. Isn't that the whole point of peer review? That example even has "ionising radiation" in the title, so that's all they had to check.

Conversely, the fact that publications like this are willing and able to publish EMF scares without cursory review suggests that there can't be a conspiracy to cover up research into EMF health issues.

NBR 13 Mar 2020
In reply to Hooo:

To be fair to the journal, its for electrical engineers, I would expect that the electrical engineering stuff would have been the focus of the reviewers. That is why it is important to look at the expertise of the authors and where the claims are being made.

itsThere 13 Mar 2020
In reply to Hooo:

The problem with the ieee here is that the papers referenced here are technically correct but they are often taken out of contex. In the world of RF electronics anything is an antenna, it just depends on the frequency for it to be efficient. Thats not to say, if its not efficient its not a problem.

Mircowaves101 is one of the goto websites on RF engineering (sorry paul, if you post here your prob gonna get banned).

https://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/biological-effects-of-em-radiation

All of the available science says this isnt an issue but lets not get complaisant. There are a fair few examples of engineers extrapolating only to later find this was a mistake, its not always a straight line.

kuevals 13 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

Hi Paul.  All of your antagonists here seem to have read the KGB and CIA handbooks.  The usual bunch of assorted useful idiots of the present system that cannot tolerate any kind of info that casts this fantastic society in a bad light.  My advice is do not argue with these clowns.  They are trolls and sheeple that support the sheepdogs. Forget them this site is notorious for such reprobates bullies and automatons.  They wouldn't accept the word of god....[only maybe the Devil]...on any topic they dislike and want to suppress.   So leave these crabs in their bucket. 

12
ThunderCat 14 Mar 2020
In reply to kuevals:

Worst sock puppet ever Paul, please try harder. 

DaveHK 14 Mar 2020
In reply to kuevals:

Wow, you actually used the word sheeple. Didn't think anyone really did that.

Blue Straggler 14 Mar 2020
In reply to ThunderCat:

The worst but somehow also the best! 

lorentz 14 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> The worst but somehow also the best! 

I like the way the poster's name is "slave UK" backwards. There's one for the conspiracy theorists. 

Hooo 15 Mar 2020
In reply to kuevals:

I assumed this was a sock-puppet account set up to try and​ entice Paul into a conversation. Shame he didn't go for it, although TBF it is probably too clichéd and over the top even for Paul.

DaveHK 21 Mar 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

I've just had a very interesting conversation with a friend who is a virologist. His whole research institute has switched to working on Covid-19.

They've split their workforce up and sent some to work from home to ensure they don't all get it at once and their critical research can continue. Others are working from home because they already have it.

This obviously relies on excellent communications and he believes one of the things that would most benefit their work and therefore the likelihood of making a breakthrough is 5g connection.


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.